Right to set new conditions of employment. The new employer is generally free to set his own working and employment conditions, even if he succeeds him. The same applies where the new employer intends to offer jobs to all or, essentially, all of the workers of its predecessor, where the new employer makes it clear from the outset that it intends to set its own conditions, which successful candidates must accept in order to be employed. However, if, directly or indirectly, the predecessor`s unionized workers believe that he will hire everyone or, for the most part, everyone, without first specifying that they must accept new conditions, he cannot set new terms and conditions of employment. Instead, she must abide by her predecessor`s terms until she negotiates new terms with the union. The new employer must not avoid recruiting some or all of the staff of the bargaining unit of its predecessor through unlawful discrimination. The doctrine that succeeded the NLRB originated in the United States. Supreme Court decision of NLRB v. Burns Int`l. Serv., 406 U.S. 272 (1972). After Burns, an employer must negotiate with a previous union if there is a “substantial continuity of identity in the company” and a majority of the new employer`s staff is made up of the employees of its predecessor. More than five years and a pandemic later, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) clarified a successor employer`s union bargaining obligations with respect to layoffs under the National Labor Relations Act.
Tramont Manufacturing, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 136 (July 27, 2020). A regional director of the NRL decided that the accusation of unfair practices by the union was meritorious and referred the charge to an administrative judge of the LNRB (ALJ). After a lawsuit, the ALJ found that these two factors were present and that RHS was therefore a successor employer to Preferred and that it had violated the LRA since October 1 by refusing to recognize and negotiate with the union. The ALJ also found that RHS was a perfectly clear successor and was therefore not in a position to unilaterally define the initial terms and conditions of work and employment. The employer appealed the ALJ`s decision to the NLRB. However, the new employer may not refuse employment to workers of their predecessor on the account of their trade union status. A new employer, who finds that he has been unlawfully discriminated against the staff of his predecessor in the recruitment process, is responsible for hiring them on a full basis. If this results in the majority of the new employer unit being made up of workers from the previous unit, the new employer must recognize and negotiate with its predecessor`s union. . . .